The Water Famine
Make no mistake, it’s here. As with energy, there is no single solution. Drill here, drill now, opening up our vast natural gas fields, to running our tens of millions of vehicles to natural gas or hybrid propulsion systems, solar, wind, and atomic energies all must be immediately deployed. The crisis of lifestyle, quality of life, economics, and national security precipitated by energy shortages, energy pricing and do-nothing politics by both parties can be overcome relatively quickly. The thing is, we have as a stop gap, lots of oil we can drill for, huge quantities of untapped natural gas, and more clean coal than anyone else. We have the ability to build atomic plants and the technical knowhow to create hybrid cars and natural gas fueled vehicles.
But we can’t creat
e water. Water is the vagary of the heavens, the amount of snowpack in the Rockies, the Himalayas, the Appalachians, and the Alps. The supply is dependent on precipitation. I believe the water crisis is already upon us. Most other resource managers believe it is now abjectly looming.
Either way, water supply hinges on three factors. Precipitation, which we can barely forecast much less control, safeguarding water quality to maximize the H2O that does become available, and efficient storage to allow for seasonal or cyclical variations in supply.
As with energy at least a portion of the problem of increasing demand and level or dwindling supply can be made up by the little things. Turning off the faucet is equivalent to turning off the light. Water saving appliances are akin to hybrid vehicles. Conversion of flood irrigation, (i.e. irrigation water diverted through ditches and dams at intervals and allowed to run helter skelter over fields) to mechanized delivery, usually 50% more efficient, and ironically usually resulting in better crop and forage yield, is analogous to conversion of vehicles to natural gas or alternate propulsion sources.
Each of us as landowners or aspiring landowners can contribute our small share, too. Those few drops of water that originate in a cold clear snow melt spring high in the mountain range join with other drops on the surface or in subterranean water flows, emerge and tumble down the hillsides. They combine to forge small creeks, and then merge with larger creeks forming rivers, filling reservoirs, creating hydropower, providing drinking water, and water to grow crops before finally making their inevitable way to the sea. All this water flows, at some point with few exceptions through private lands. The protection of these riparian corridors which are the arteries of the earth is the responsibility of every landowner. If each of us does our small part, and insures the enhancements which promote water quality and quantity are protected perpetually into the future, we will all have a long leg up on humankind’s next emerging crisis.
Montana Ranches:
- Ruby Lake Ranch
- Lemon Creek Ranch
- Three Creeks Ranch
- Ruby River Canyon Ranch
- Ruby Canyon Overlook Ranch
- River Island Ranch
- Ruby Oxbow Ranch
- Bar JS Ranch
- Braids of the River Ranch
- Rainbow Ranch
- Indian Creek Ranch
- Rock Point Ranch
- Copperfield Ranch
- Cooperman Ranch
- Oxbow Association Ranch
Wyoming Ranches:
- Labonte Canyon
- Wherenberg Ranch
- Bortles Ranch
- Tottenhoff Ranches
- Laprele Creek Ranch
- Indian Creek Ranch
British Columbia:
South America:
Read or make comments for this article
Good comment. Thank you. While you are mixing and matching two subjects here--renewable energy/air quality with water resources, you are correct in that there is some connection. My response could go on for pages, so I will synopsize.
Water rights are adjudicated. That means that all rights in a basin (in a river, let's say) are owned. Their priority is usually determined by the date of adjudication, the earlier, the more senior. Most basins allow no new consumptive uses, i.e., you can have no new use without buying water already in the basin, or giving up another use. This has posed dilemmas for agriculture and in stream flows for fish and wildlife in high growth areas. A new nuclear plant, to the extent it does not recycle water for cooling and other uses (and the great majority of water is recycled) has to buy that water. The sellers of the water no longer have the use of the right sold.
Obama's goal of conversion to wind and solar is laudable; however, it is totally unrealistic. At best, in ten years, we MIGHT be at 20% of total power generation from renewables. Maybe. Right now we are at about 1%. The cost, time, and logistical brain damage involved in setting up transmission lines to carry this renewable energy to the grid is enormous. EPA and NEPA studies can run three years for a power line. Then there are those that shout for clean energy, but not in their back yard. Witness Robert Kennedy's vehement opposition to wind power off the Massachusetts coast because it might interfere with his view. Ranchers will be up in arms about power lines crossing their property. Fish and Game and wildlife organizations will rightfully fight lines through prime wildlife habitat. Other groups will resist square miles of solar collectors and wind turbines in remote pristine desert and high wind corridors.
There is only one fuel that can bridge this gap. That is Natural Gas (NG). It is relatively inexpensive to extract, is very reasonably priced, and boasts very low emissions; the lowest of all hydro carbon fuels. NG has distribution (underground) mostly in place, can power vehicles (AT&T , as one example, converting 15,000 fleet vehicles as we write this), can generate power, and can heat homes. NG also happens to be plentiful throughout the US, and we have more than just about any place on earth. However, Obama?s plans could cripple this industry with taxes and regulations, and some states are very unwisely following a similar path, such as Colorado. Besides being foolhardy, not in the security interests of the US, and resulting in net job losses to the tune of hundreds of thousands, these policies, if enacted, will actually undermine development of renewables by reducing amounts available to invest in alternative energy. Bottom line is you have to drive, you have to have heat, you have to have power while the renewable system is built, and then thereafter for the shortfall which will be a whopping 70-80% or more of total demand.
While all this is transpiring, the Administration has also proffered a ?Cap and Trade? tax. This will increase costs to all users of hydro carbons, (fuel, energy, heat, virtually all plastics, etc. etc. etc.). This will drastically increase costs to all of us, resulting in a huge tax on all Americans, including the "95% who won?t see their taxes go up one dime" as Mr. Obama has again recently claimed.
The answer is a few nuclear power plants in the right places, spur exploration, extraction, and distribution, particularly of NG with drilling incentives, drop the insane idea of Cap and Trade tax, and instead tax profits (not gross revenues)of energy companies (let?s say 5-10%). And investing all (no governmental bureaucracy money siphoning) those tax revenues in renewables. Then, streamlining environmental standards for all energy production, offer additional incentives to renewables, and insure the federal government stays out of most of this except to back the incentives. Although my thoughts do not exactly dovetail with his, go to T. Boone Pickens? website, www.boonepickens.com, for the most coherent energy plan currently in writing. These steps would also go far towards alleviating many of the energy related water concerns you mentioned.